- 0 Posts
- 100 Comments
Consoles have mainly operated following the razor and blades economic model: sell the console at or near cost and then sell the games at much higher prices than PC games.
Overall they were always an inferior financial choice vs the PC because that extra costs for console games didn’t take that many games to exceed the savings in upfront costs of buying a console over a PC - turns out that plenty of games which aren’t ultra-realistic extravaganzas with budgets in the 100s of millions of dollars are also fun because gameplay is more important than graphics, and there are tons of those for the PC and they’re way cheaper than the latest AAA fancy-graphics with meuh gameplay games that are console exclusives.
Worse, this was the before: nowadays a console itself isn’t really all that much cheaper than a PC, so even the upfront saving isn’t there anymore.
Unsurprisingly consoles have been losing ground to PCs.
Oh, yeah.
I’m just thinking the more well known stuff with the “fancier” desktops and shipped with applications like LibreOffice and Firefox which are probably closer to familiar and don’t look like a step back for Windows and Mac users.
If you really want to extend the life of your hardware to the max, well, whilst Linux has discontinued support for 486 and Pentium processors last year, any hardware newer than that (so, around 30 years or less) will still run the latest kernel and as you mentioned there are distros targeting machines with very little RAM and HDD space.
This is around $250 (and that’s the version for Europe, shipped from Spain and the price includes VAT).
Six months ago it was just $150, so the current RAM and SSD prices seem to be fully included in the device price.
I got one to replace an aging Windows 8 PC of a family member who only does web-browsing and e-mail and put Linux on it, and have another one at home working as a TV Box + Home server.
With Linux that’s more than enough for browsing, e-mail and even office apps. Not a machine for gamers, but then again gamers aren’t buying “entry level PCs”.
It’s not actually the “older hardware” that’s responsible for security vulnerabilities, it’s Microsoft chosing to end support for Windows 10.
That “older” hardware capable of running Windows 10 is more than capable of running any Linux distro which will keep on getting security updates for a long while (and you can just upgrade it again if that stops as Linux is nowhere as hardware demanding as Windows, especially the latest, Electron + AI, Windows).
For people who just use their PC for Office software, e-mail and browsing - who are the ones getting entry level PCs - hardware has been more than powerfull enough for 2 decades, and it’s only Windows bloatware having grown to use the available computing power that has forced people to upgrade the hardware.
Same here.
The whole things has a massive “grift” vibe, especially given that they’re double dipping since supporters of their “Game preservation efforts” still have to pay for those games.
Happy to keep on buying games from them in preference to from Steam, some even from the “Good old game” bucket, just not willing to assume a monthly monetary commitment to some black-box “trust us” which feels a lot like the “Charity as a business” shit from the most sleazy “charities” out there (you know the kind: the ones with CEOs paid massive salaries and were only a small fraction of contributions actually ends up in the charitable objective).
I think I thoroughly proved with 5 minutes Googling and the links I provided that your claim that the extreme rise in memory prices was just “social media vibes”, is complete total denialist bollocks (you’re pretty much saying “not it’s no just because I say so”) as well as lazy (you could’ve easily done the 5 minutes Googling for “DDR5 price history”, same as me and avoided saying such easily disproven bollocks).
You were literally bullshitting your argument when claiming that the RAM price rises weren’t true or were exaggerated and then when it was proven out with actual sources (as you demanded, no less), claiming you’ve been insulted - yeah, well, sorry that you’re trying to bullshit your way into winning an argument, mate.
As for the rest, if you seem to understand Supply/Demand based on the simplified overview explanation of it given to people who don’t know enough Maths to understand it in depth and thus misused an Economics 101 simplified explanation of Supply/Demand which is only about aggregate price movements, to try and make an argument about individual market actors, a level that’s beyond the scope of that simplified explanation.
Supply/Demand isn’t a Law and it doesn’t work in a Formulaic way - it’s a Statistical and Game Theory process were the incentives of Market Actors on both sides constantly seek a balance, and when Supply changes and Demand doesn’t keep up or vice-versa, that changes some incentives and the result in aggregate is that price will over time move until a new price is discovered were incentives are once again in balance, and all this isn’t instantaneous and there are things such as inertia as well as overshooting and undershooting of the final price.
Market Actors aren’t directly forced to do anything, they’re just incentivized to do so by the changed market conditions and because they see an opportunity to gain more under those new conditions but how fast and how far do they follow those incentives is up to each Market Actor.
Because this is a process in aggregate, nobody actually knows the final price once a new balance is found, plus there is a lot of room for exploiting the inertia, overshooting and undershooting of the process and extracting more profits from it, it’s perfectly fair to point at a specific Market Player and say that “they’re going too far” in how far and how fast they changed their prices and are thus profiteering from the situation.
Further and specifically for situation, all that only works well in highly competitive markets, and the memory market is no such thing hence a player like Samsung owns enough of the market that they can actually influence where the new price point will be, so here it’s even more valid be critical of Samsung if they’re perceived to be profiteering because their actions in the memory market can actually push the price further since that specific market isn’t free and highly competitive so doesn’t respond in the same way.
Your post is complete total denialist bollocks, lazy bollocks even.
DDR5 RAM increased way more in 2025 (more than doubling) than the 2.69% of the USD inflation that year.
I think the point is that Samsung isn’t forced to raise prices since their raw material and manpower costs aren’t actually any higher.
However they’re a for-profit company in a Capitalist system and as per the Supply-Demand inbalances as you pointed out, they’re in a situation were they can raise prices without losing sales, so that’s exactly what they’re doing since it increases their profits.
People’s outrage is at how far they are exploiting the opportunity opened by the imbalance in Supply and Demand to raise prices - memory prices doubling and trippling is something else than, say, a 40% price increase - which is not at all a denial that the opportunity is there for the suppliers to take and why.
Your explanation of the situation that allows a supplier to increase prices to get better profits does not at all sit in opposition to people being morally outraged about how far a supplier is exploiting that situation for their own gain and the loss of customers.
It’s not by chance that for example the Investment Banking industry pays a lot more money to developers than the wider IT industry - a system breaking down for an hour or two there can cost millions because, for example, trader’s can’t actually trade certain assets.
Generally the more money that depends on their systems being functional without errors or interruptions, the more an industry is willing to pay for devs.
If your income comes mainly from your work, you’re Working Class (even if you own you own business), if your income comes mainly from the money made by the money you have (in assets or even “investments”) you’re Owner Class.
Certainly, modern politics only ever divides people in those two classes, with mainstream parties generaly only working for the good of the Owner Class which is how you end up with falling salaries in real terms and growing Asset valuations in the form of bubbles on all kinds of assets, most notably stocks and realestate (notice how most mainstream politicians see the rising of both stockmarkets and house prices - tough of late, they don’t say it about the latter quite as openly - as being good things).
The single greatest scam of modern Neoliberal Capitalism was making people who own their means of production - sometimes only partially or not really because they’re in debt for it - but still have to work for a living think they’re not Working Class and hence Neoliberal Capitalism is actually working for their benefit.
If there is one thing that around a decade working for the Finance Industry has taught me, is that almost all government policies are directed to help those who make money from having money make even more money, which is why, for example, plenty of countries have lower taxes on income from “investments” than on income from “work”, when the fair thing would be the other way around since the former is parasitical so lower taxes on it just induces more economic actors to engage in non-productive, extractive economic activities.
The problem is that the very capabilities that let a game have “way more of something than it could otherwise have” (say, thousands of unique voices reading context-specific runtime generated text) can be used to reduce the need for workers (so one can just pretty much generate all speech in game by paying a bunch of random people of the street for to come over and read text for 1h and then just clone their voices and used that to generate all in-game speech - the quality way less than pre-prepared lines read by a trained voice actor, but the cost will be a tiny fraction of it).
AI can helps us do things which in practice would otherwise be impossible but many (maybe most) companies are just using it to cut manpower costs even though it delivers inferior results than than trained professionals.
For me it really depends on the game and whilst the “glitzy” is often an indirect indicator of a game which is limited in its replayabiliy - I suppose because often they’re games were there was much more investment in looks than gameplay - I should have added “highly curated” to that sentence since for me games with a story meant to be experienced in a certain way are pretty much “play once”.
Most of the games which I keep coming back to again and again in quite short cycles have emergent gameplay elements and even the entire game area is different from play to play - not just Indie Games like Factorio, Don’t Starve, The Lone Dark in Survival mode and Project Zomboid but also something like The Sims - whilst of “story” games, there are very few I go back to (as I mentioned Oblivion but also Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3) and when I do it’s after much more time, I suppose because I have to forget most of the story for it to be fun again.
My impression that in the last decade AAA has focused mostly on just two kinds of games - “Glitzy AAA open-world-ish” RPGs and multiplayer battle games - and for me the first have limited replayability unless they’re a world with A LOT of depth were the story is but a small part of the game, whilst I can’t be arsed to play the latter ever since online battlefields were swamped by kids in consoles as I really don’t have the patience to babysit somebody else’s ill behaved kids (still waiting for game makers to figure out that Adult Only servers would be immensely popular).
It’s not that AAA can’t do games with massive replayability, it’s that the AAA part of the industry seems to have gone down the route of games being either “curated experiences” or massive multiplayer were the emergent gameplay comes the actions of other players, whilst many Indies - having way smaller budgets - have gone down routes were the gameplay is “self-assembling” emergent, often with the game area being procedurally generated, which adds up to something less predictable were two runs of the game whilst sharing some similarities are in practice sufficiently different not to feel repetitive.
Almost all of the “Top 10 most replayable games” I have are Indie games, especially in the last 10 years.
They’re games like Factorio or Project Zomboid which I keep getting back to a year or two after I last played so much of it that I got fed up.
Glitzy AAA open-world-ish games have beautiful visuals but their replayability is near zero, worse so for games which seem open-world but are in fact linear.
Mind you, some older AAA jewels in that style (such as Oblivion) do get me to come back eventually, but it takes something like 5+ or more as I basically have to forget most of the story before it’s interesting to play such a game again.
If Price matched “Hours of Fun”, almost all of the AAA stuff would be way cheaper whilst many Indie games would be far more expensive.
Fuck, maybe they went down in quality again 😬
In my own experience, the original QCs were great tech for the time, the QC 2.5 (or maybe I had a QC 2?) had issues and lasted much less and then the QC 3.5 were again great (the battery lasts way longer, build quality is nice and the user interface is decent with no such problems as your reported “easy to switch off” button).
Also I never used the manufacturer’s app, and it’s not really needed even with with the wireless 3.5 model (I don’t even know if there’s a mfg app for those), certainly not with the previous ones which are wired.
(As a general rule I avoid mfg apps since they’re almost always overbloated shit and instead always chose devices which do not require an app).
The QC 3.5 was launched almost a decade ago, so plenty of time for later models to have been enshittified.
This is totally different from my experience.
I use headphones, which cover the full ear so I don’t get any “tired ears” from those. Maybe you’re using a totally different model (no idea if BOSE have earphones and if they’re any good - I avoid any earphones exactly because of getting “tired ears” with them).
If you’re using headphones, maybe you have the QC 3 (which are widelly seen as shit)?!
I have had over the years the original QC, QC 2.5 and QC 3.5 and still use the QC and QC 3.5 with none of those problems (funnilly enough, the oldest, an original QC, uses a single removable AAA battery, and I use rechargeable ones and even that will last around 3 - 4 days, whilst the built-in LiPo in the QC 3.5 lasts even more than that when using bluetooth, and even more when using an audio wire).
I’ve been using Bose Quiet Comfort noise reduction headphones for almost 2 decades now, ever since I had to do software development in a large open space office alongside the noisy business-side types (this was in Investment Banking - so whilst not a heavy-machinery-noisy environment, certain the top range of office noisy) and those they were very good already back then (I’m still using at home the first model I got, after replacing the ear-pads which is what gets damaged over time).
The QC 3.5 and onwards have bluetooth AND also a wired connection as fallback (which I have had to use with devices without bluetooth).
Of course, you pay for it (last ones I got were €250 if I remember it correctly), but then again they last a long time (as I said, the first ones, now almost 2 decades old, are still work fine even if the outside is all scratched up and they’re now on the 5th or 6th pair or earpads).
I very much doubt Sony one’s are anywhere close to that, especially given that the quality of Sony devices took a massive dive in the late 90s when top level management which until then was dominated by the Engineering side was taken over by the Media side took over (before they used to be known for the high quality of their electronics).
Well that, how that is not reliable and requires specific knowledge to do, how most people don’t know how to do it because it’s not at all advertised and how all that is an anti-feature negative to customers and which doesn’t at all need to be there.
But yeah, I definitelly tend to ramble on and on (and on, and on, and on …).
This is something I wasn’t aware of, so thanks for the info.
There are also some other ways to work around Steam DRM, such as the Goldberg Emulator (basically a steam_api DLL which for steam client games emulates the Steam servers).
It’s just all so unreliable and an unecessary hassle when it does work, because of something which only benefits Steam and causes a product to be inferior for the customer.
If Steam made available offline installers with no DRM, clearly stated on the store page even if alongside stuff with DRM and/or no offline installers, I would be buying way more from them than I do.
Even with the whole “so far, so good” soft thouch approach under Gabe’s leadership that does not leverage market power over developers to force use of Steam’s DRM and lets us as customers have all sorts of ways to work around Steam DRM when games do have it, we’re all just having to pray that the guy keeps eating his veggies, avoids saturated fats and walks at least half an hour a day so as to reduce the risk of dying from a heart attack, and always looks both ways when crossing the road so as not to be run over, because when the guy goes the “benevolent regime” might very well be replaced by a malevolent one (as has happened in lots of good companies) and people’s game collections in Steam will be hostages to it because of the way things are set-up (since the first thing a “malevolent regime” would do is push updates closing all the loopholes).
Steam purposefully pushed and pushes for there to be unecessary hurdles in installing and running the games customers buy from them, which do not benefit their customers but do benefit Steam, and which did not exist in most games before Steam (“offline” installers was the default way to install games until the Steam Store).
They don’t do it in a nasty way that tries hard to stop people from finding workarounds to that, so some customers will then find hacks to work around such obstacles, and hacks by definition are not supported and in this case do not work reliably for all games.
Steam not tightenning it down as much as they can and thus there being ways around it for some games, doesn’t make it any less true that Steam has a policy of trying to get the games that they sell to have an unecessary reduction of customer freedom that does not deliver anything to the customer, and that they don’t disclose which games do and which don’t so that the customer can’t easilly make an informed decision on that factor.
(Compare it to how GOG does make available GOG Galaxy which will does deliver the same core positive features as the Steam App, such as automated updating, but doesn’t actually force customers to use it at all for any game. Personally I installed the thing once, looked around, uninstalled it and went back to downloading installers)
My problem is with that policy of trying to limiting the freedom to use the product, for Steam’s benefit and in a way that doesn’t benefit customers in any way form or shape, even if it’s done via the soft sales push to developers/publishers rather than leveraging their dominant market position as a game store to force it on developers/publishers, together with some purposeful obfuscation in the games listings so that customers when buying don’t just start favoring games not crippled with those freedom limitations.
No matter how Steam makes it happen, ultimatelly what customers get from Steam is “likely crippled, might be able to hack my way around it for some but I don’t know which” games., which compares negativelly with GOG who have a policy for all games of being “guaranteed not crippled in this way or similar”.
It makes total sense that this then reflects on whether as a customer I’m willing to buy or not a game from Steam and even in being willing to pay a bit more for a game which is guaranteed to not come purposefully crippled in the way most Steam games are.
“There’s an easy undocumented workaround that works for some games” doesn’t really alter the reality that Steam is purposefully set up to keep customers tied to Steam for things where there is no need for customers to be tied to Steam. Steam could’ve moved towards a model like GOG were customers use their app simply because it’s convenient, nice and delivers desired features rather than because they have no other option than use it, but Steam haven’t moved to that model.
Mind you, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t buy from Steam, I’m saying that they should be well aware that Steam is trying to sell them products which have had some features purposefully crippled for Steam’s benefit and to force customers to use the Steam App, and if knowing this those people are still fine with it, then it’s their choice.
Are you saying that from the Steam Store you can download an offline installer?
Or is it a not officially supported process that some users figured out, involving running Steam on the work PC, installing the game there, copying the installation files over (or maybe the installer itself from the Steam cache) to the home PC and then runninb Steam there, online to verify/execute the installation.
Because if it is the latter, I don’t think it qualifies as “the same thing” as what I described I did with GOG. That’s more of an undocumented hack than an actual store feature.
My own negative experiences with Steam vs GOG were:
- Moving homes and having no landline Internet for a while and not being able to most install most of my Steam games on my desktop gaming PC because mobile Internet is slow and expensive so installing a big game literally costs money. With GOG I just downloaded the offline installer at work into a USB Flash Disk and then installed it on my desktop at home.
- Not being able to install perfectly functional games from Steam into a machine with an old Windows version because the Steam client didn’t support it anymore (even though the games were compatible with that version). Mind you, you that machine shouldn’t even be connected to the Internet for safety reasons, which again would stop me from installing games from Steam even if the client worked.
Beyond that with Steam you have the risk that Steam takes away one or more of your game for some reason (say, licensing problems or just Payment Processors pressuring them to do it), you lose access to your account and can’t recover it (unusual, but possible), your account is forcibly closed for an arbitrary reason with no appeal (not happened yet with Steam but did happen with others such as Google), the store goes bankrupt and closes (not happened yet with steam but has happened with sellers of music with DRM if I remember it correctly), games without DRM or with Steam’s light DRM (the one simply using steam_api.dll, for which there are implementations which just emulate the API without phoning home) get forcibly updated to hard DRM so whilst before you could run it offline, now you can’t.
(Mind you, you get some of these problems - such as risking the loss of your entire game collection if the store goes belly up - with GOG if you just use GOG Galaxy and don’t download the offline installers for all your games, but at least there it’s entirely down to you as the store does nothing to make it harder for you to eliminate those risks)
Steam makes a lot of effort to keep itself inside the loop of gamers playing the games, not forcibly so (as somebody pointed out, they don’t force developers to use DRM) but more with a soft sales push (they offer it for free to developers and publishers and purposefully a bunch of “easy to implement” online features such as Achievements to using the “phone home” Steam DRM to induce developers to use it). They also do not at all indicate before a purchase on the Steam store if a game has Steam DRM or not, so that consumers have to go out of their way to make an informed buying decision, if at all possible. Even for the games on Steam without any DRM one has to actually use an unsupported process to keep a copy of that game after installed from Steam (a simple copy & paste which those who know what a filesystem is can do, though maybe not the less tech literate, though gamers tend to be more tech literate), so people tend not to do it. The result is that most Steam games have DRM and most game playing done on games from Steam involves the phone-home check of the Steam DRM.
Meanwhile in GOG it’s the exact opposite - people have to really go crazily out of their way to run a game from GOG with DRM (apparently there are one or two which slipped the net, and for others I guess you could implement your own DRM around it by encrypting the binary or something 😜)
Ultimately it boils down to weather one is comfortable or not with having for their games collection the risks I listed above.
Personally, with my almost 4 decades experience as a gamer (and almost that much as a Techie), I’m not at all comfortable with that since over the years I’ve seen multiple instances of people getting fucked by their software or even hardware being unnecessarily tied to a vendor for their normal usage loop.
That said, people going into this aware of the risks and still cool with them, then, hey, 👍, you’re an adult, making a well informed decision and will only affect yourself it the risks do materialized into a problem, so you’ll get no criticism from me.
Strawman recipe
Step 1 - Put up the strawman by stating that the other person was trying to do something they explicitly said they were not trying to do when they actually explained exactly what they were trying to do:
your metaphor is based on the premise that copy and paste is difficult.
(No. My methaphor is based on how in multiple domains “selling things which can be altered to do something else by those who know how to do such alterations is not the same as selling things for that specific purpose”, as I already explained before and you pointedly ignored. PS: anybody in doubt can just read my other posts here as they’re all consistently about how things are sold, not how things are hacked)
–
Step 2 - Totally trash the very strawman you put up:
You can compare it to something ridiculous, but it doesn’t change that copying and pasting something is something actual children master.
(Absolutely right! I was doing totally wrong that which you claimed I was trying to do. In fact, so totally and completely wrong was the way I was trying to do what you claimed I was trying to do, that intelligent individuals might even suspect I was not in fact trying to do that which you claim, but something else for which what I wrote wasn’t such a mismatched comparison).
–
PS: Loved in this latest post the throwing of vague aspersions about my education level as a counter whilst not in fact addressing my argument. Really shows the strength of your argument and depth of reasoning.
Steam is pushing DRM, to publishers and makers, just the soft sales push rather than forcing them to use it.
It’s not even heavy DRM - it’s designed as a single DLL and there are literally freely available implementations out there of the API as DLLs which allow running most Steam games offline and Steam has done nothing to try and have them pulled down - so at the moment it’s not at all done in a nasty forceful way.
The end result is still that most Steam games do have Steam DRM, most gamers out there don’t know how to work around it, and if tomorrow Steam wants to force update all games to have nasty DRM, they can.
(And, as we’ve seen from how they caved to payment processors on the whole Adult Games front, Steam can be even be pushed to do things they don’t intend to do)
It’s kinda like it’s possible to configure Windows 11 to not run with all the eavesdropping shit, but people have to be aware of it, care about in and go out of their way to make it happen (though, unlike Steam, MS will actually periodically switch back ON that stuff which people switched OFF).
It’s not a nasty “authoritarian” forcing of DRM but it’s still the relentless soft sales push that in practice results in almost everybody by default buying and running games with DRM, whilst with GOG the default is no DRM so most people run DRM free games (one would have to really go out of their way to run a GOG game with DRM).
If there is one thing almost 4 decades as a gamer have taught me is that often DRM is fine until it isn’t, and you don’t really know which ones will be a problem until they are a problem and by then it’s too late and a game you love is now unplayable. If this is bad on a game, it’s many times worse when it applies to a collection of hundreds of games - if Steam turns evil or goes bankrupt it will be many times worse than just one game not running on an OS version later than the max supported when the game was shipped (or something like that).
In risk management terms, with games purchased from Steam de facto there are risks which are not in games with an offline installer and which don’t have DRM (needs not be bough in GOG, and GOG too has some of those risks if you don’t proactivelly download the offline installers), and a couple of decades in gaming (and Tech in general) have taught me that sometimes you get bitten by such risks.
It is a very appealing proposal and that’s why I myself have bought games from Steam when I can’t find them in GOG. Further, I’m not strict about always downloading GOG offline installers for all my games, even though if I don’t I run the risk of losing those games if for example the GOG store closes.
And, as you point out, “so far, so good”.
I’ve just been burned by earlier forms of enshittification and service relationships misportrayed as purchases of forever access.
Also, almost 4 decades of using or in Tech have made me very aware of elements which can affect long term usability of software and hardware.
So nowadays I’ll only ever spend money on things which follow that scheme if I’m willing to lose it, even if for now they seem fine, and favour things that I’ll have a chance to still make work 10 or 20 years down the line (funilly enough, this week I’ve been playing Jagged Alliance 2, which is a 26 years old game with gameplay that’s still as fun as back then).
My methaphor is explained in the pharagraph immediatelly following that first one:
When you’re making a purchasing decision on their store, Steam doesn’t tell you upfront if the game has or not their DRM hence you cannot make an informed decision on that factor: Steam most definitelly do not want potential customers to select games on the basis or absence of DRM.
I hoped this made it obvious that I was making an analogy about the way both things are sold, by, you know, me talking only about the way things are sold in the following paragraph and not at all about other things.
It’s you who chose to treat the thing as a comparison between the details of characteristics I mentioned in passing and did not at all mention further in my explanation.
Your claim that my premise is about the technical difficulty in making one or the other support making them do something they are not officially supported to do is a Strawman.
You pointed out that Steam sells games without DRM.
I pointed out that for the customer that’s just a side effect of Steam selling games, since the absence of DRM is not pitched as a feature or even listed by the Steam store.
It seems to me that my point just adds to your point to make a more complete picture that better informs readers.
Are not both our points true?
What was the purpose of you writting as the very first sentence of your post:
Steam doesn’t enforce the use of its DRM (which is super easy to bypass anyway but that’s a side note).
If not to tell us that Steam also sells DRM-free games?
If Steam also sells DRM-free games (even if alongside games with DRM) then de facto Steam is a seller of DRM-free games.
Being a “seller of” doesn’t mean just selling that and nothing else.
My own experience of problems with the “Steam way” is wanting to install and run a new game whilst offline (for example, when I moved houses and was waiting to get landline Internet running, whilst mobile Interned was too slow or expensive to download anything but the tinyiest of games, all the while my external HD with a collection of GOG offline installers gave me plenty of options) and installing games in machines with older versions of Windows because the Steam Application doesn’t support those old OS versions anymore (plus, in all honesty, you definitelly don’t want to to connect such machines to the Internet for security reasons).
Further, as I said in a different post, I can run my GOG games through Lutris by default sandboxed with networking disabled, but I can’t do that in Steam.
More in general, as a Techie since the 90s I’ve long been very aware (and averse) to the dangers of having software or data which is supposedly yours yet is de facto under direct control of an external 3rd party for whom you’re nothing (i.e. not a mate you lent a CD to, but a big company with a massive Legal budget controlling your access to it using phone-home validation), so out of principle I heavilly favor sellers who do not try and retain control of what I bought from them. Same reason I didn’t like “phone home” or “dependent on external servers” hardware or DRM-wrapped books or music, well before the recent wave of enshittification and increase in problems like digital books taken away from people because of some licensing dispute (or even their accounts just being terminated) or hardware bricked because the servers were switched off.
Whilst it might seem like an old-fashioned sense of ownership, that posture has saved me from pretty much all the effects of the enshittification wave.
I use both Steam with Proton (for Steam store games) and Lutris with Wine (for the rest, mainly GOG) and the rate of one-click-setup success in both is about the same (maybe slightly better for Steam), with Lutris with Wine being more easy to tweak for solving the problems for those games that won’t just directly run, plus Lutris lets me do way much more configuration customizing, so for example all my games under Lutris run sandboxed with networking disabled by default.
Granted, I am a Techie so I can more easilly figure out how to tweak all those configuration options and how to track launch problems in the logs.
Maybe Steam with Proton has a slight advantage for non-Techies (or Techies who just don’t have the patience to even try to tweak things when a game won’t run and just give up on it and move on), but it’s not really that amazing - I get the impression it’s more of a problem of misinformation (people hear about Steam and Proton and how it’s all great, so try it and stick with it, but they don’t hear enough about Lutris and the Heroic Launcher so end up not even trying either of them): it looks a lot to me like an instance of the usual “open source vs commercial software” marketing problem.
Mind you, without Lutris (or, as others mentioned, the Heroic Launcher which is similar) with all the nice install scripts properly configuring Wine for the specific game being installed, trying to game on Linux by directly configuring Wine (+DXVK) would be as an experience bad as gaming on Linux was a decade ago.
PS: That said, using the GOG client on Linux is a hassle and best avoided. both Lutris and Heroic integrate with GOG, listing the games in your account and seamlessly downloading the installers when you chose to install a game.
So it uses up way more hardware and power whilst not improving the part of the game were the fun is: gameplay.
What’s next NVidia, an AI driver that plays the game for you?!